DISQUS

I think you mean "this seems pretty "weak."

I posted originally on the washingtonpost discussion for this article.


I hope you get a chance to look at it and comment Sophia.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/20/AR2008112002959_Comments.html



by dealy663 @ 11/24/2008 4:23:15 PM



Geez there are some nutcases out there responding here on your blogpost. They should be deleted.

Andy Reid - again does not get it.

Kidding me with this Phillies offense - kidding me.

Where are the Mets, for real?

farve's a jet - that other team from NY a contender now? NO WAY.

Is Bill Conlin suggesting Cole Hamels is hurt in today's paper?

IDP has posted Nat'l Delegate Tallies They are as follows: Obama 16, Clinton 9, Edwards 4.

CD 1: O 3, C 2, E 1

CD 2: O 4, C 2, E 1


CD 3: O 3, C 2, E 1


CD 4: O 4, C 2


CD 5: O 2, C 1, E 1

http://iowademocrats...

CD 1 saw the only change from the totals that had been estimated by the media and the Obama campaign based on the County Convention results.

197, 169, 107 If those were the results, Obama would get 3 dels, Clinton 2 and Edwards 2.

Yep, Dothan. Been there a million times. Part of the trek of anyone going from the Atlanta area to Panama City Beach. Every time we make that trip, we see probably 50% of the license plates being from the metro Atlanta area.

They just need a bigger sign above that mess saying "TO PANAMA CITY" when you're heading south and another that says "TO ATLANTA" when you're heading north. Though if you want to eat at Cracker Barrel, you have to take one of the other "North" options to get there. Sometimes it pays off to try an alternate.

Nick, I've never said "identical" and none of the house church proponents I've ever read or talked would say "identical." That's not the point.

The point is that the implementation is always part of the message. If I'm telling people that part of their job is to take care of widows and orphans (which in our culture would also reflect other global poverty issues), yet I'm spending most of my personal money on all the latest fads and condoning the church spending money on elaborate buildings, presentation systems and programs to server the church members, doesn't that completely undermine my message?

When Paul talks about each person having an opportunity to speak in a church gathering, and our worship services are limited to two or three people ever having an opportunity to share, shouldn't that make us question our current methods?

When the Bible never speaks about utilizing a church "building," and we have churches all across America spending tens of millions of dollars each (or more) on buildings, shouldn't that make us question our current methods?

When churches are building these buildings instead of using resources to help those in need, shouldn't that make us question our current methods?

When the Bible speaks very strongly against a clergy/laity division, never mentions a professional approach to ministry, and never condones the payment of church leaders, shouldn't that make us question our current methods? (1 Timothy 5:17 refers to *honor*, not payment. How a translation translates this verse is now one of my tests of a good translation.)

When the Bible speaks of the church confessing sins to each other, praying for each other, taking care of each other, and most Christians in most churches barely even know each others' names, shouldn't that make us question our current methods?

Our gatherings, relationships, leadership style, location, and use of resources are as far away from NT descriptions as you can image. Anyone giving a good objective look at the NT church, and then looking at modern church organizations, can see that. Especially unbelievers.

I'm not sure how much freedom Christ gives us in the implementation of His church. I think we have some freedom within the descriptions that the NT has given us, but the current modern church is very far outside of those descriptions.

And in reality, I have experienced more freedom outside of the modern church than I ever experienced inside of it. It is the fullness of Christ that I am seeking, and I believe that this is based much more on my obedience to Scripture than my ability to be strategic and innovative. I wish it were based more on the latter - I'm better at it! But strategy and innovation only make sense when you're staying true to Scripture - not just in theology, but in practice also.

Nick: "Home Churches may be great in some cases, but definitely not in all cases. The Bible gave an example of how it was done in that culture at that time when it gives us the accounts of the 1st Century church."

The Bible gives an example of what Jesus' hand-picked followers started, being led by the Holy Spirit. These were the guys who developed our very theology. Who were performing miracles. I think we should take their suggestions regarding the methods and practices of the church a little more seriously.

If we claim that their methods and practices were culture-specific, it is only a small step to say that their theological implementation was culture-specific as well. This is the step that many Christians take today with a liberal theology. Claiming that there is no such thing as hell, for instance. We can't claim that the theology is immovable while also claiming that the methods and practices are entirely relative.

Anyone can move multitudes. The question is, what are they being saved into? Does what they are being saved into look anything like the relational church described in the New Testament, where all believers contributed to the gatherings, lived simply, shared with each other, and were led by the Holy Spirit in an organic, functional way as the body of Christ, not as members of an organization?

This is what the house movement is about. It's a lot more than just the location. Even comparisons to the New Testament church don't matter to you, then I can understand why Barna and Viola sound nuts. But I've begun to take the New Testament a lot more seriously, so they make a heck of a lot of sense to me.

Art: "Barna and Viola overestimate the commitment that nominal Christians have to anything. Sheep won't do much else but die without a shepherd."

This cracks me up. The passive spectator mentality is a byproduct of the presentational style of worship/teaching, and then you say house church can't work? One of the reasons I've been drawn to house church is because of it works against people's tendencies to be docile. We've had people leave our house church because they just wanted to sit in a pew and "be fed." That's exactly the kind of damage Viola speaks of.

Tony S: "It is too stuck in the idea instead of being a practical stepping stone for a transition."

I used to have it in my head that a stepping stone would be appropriate. But every house church (or cell church) expert I've ever read has said specifically that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to make the transition. Some shifts are too large to cut into smaller chunks.

Todd: "So, if we are returning to the first century church, is everyone going to give up everything you own and live in a commune. Are you going to sell your lands and houses?"

I've heard of groups that do that kind of thing and guess who criticizes them the most? "Traditional" Christians.

Nevertheless, we *should* look at Acts 4:32-35. And it is primarily focused on *sharing*. Which happens little amongst members of a traditional American church. We're too busy being good little credit-driven consumers and keeping up with the Jones'! I don't think a direct reading of that passage requires us to sell everything and live in communes. It just requires us to be more anti-consumeristic, focused more on others' needs than our own desires, and having a commitment to live well underneath our means. But I think that committing millions of dollars to building projects runs directly against all of that.

Todd: "Do we throw away 2000 years of development just because it's not perfect? Some how I don't think we should."

Actually, there's a huge chunk of that history that we SHOULD throw away. Worship of Mary (431)? The "pontifex maximus" (big bridgebuilder) (607)? Worship of images and relics (786)? Holy water (850)? Celibacy (1079)? Indulgences (1190)? Transubstantiation (1215)? Bible forbidden to laymen (1229)? Purgatory (1439)? Then the culmination of the clergy-dominated system - declaring beliefs like this to have equal authority with Scripture (1545).

That just a small, partial list. Guess what it all started with? The banning of house churches in 380. That's 1200 years of history we SHOULD just throw away. Including the basilica/cathedral style worship, which was developed not using New Testament theology, but by co-opting what was common in every other religion in the world (including Jewish and pagan systems).

In another book, Viola says "the Reformation recovered the truth of the priesthood of all believers. But it failed to restore the necessary practices that embody this teaching." Practices described in the New Testament. Practices that the house church movement are restoring, and that the traditional church is resisting because its practices are, for the most part, incompatible with those described in the New Testament.

Luther, Calvin, etc. got a bad reaction from the traditional church because they took a look at scripture and noticed that the theology of the church looked nothing like the theology in scripture. The house church movement gets a bad reaction because they're looking at scripture and noticing that the principles, practices, and methods of the church looks nothing like those in scripture.

"The stunning reality is that today's sermon has no root in Scripture. Rather, it was borrowed from pagan culture, nursed and adopted into the Christian faith."

"There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament that supports the existence of the modern-day pastor!"

Whatever you think of how they criticize the modern church (this is not new to either of them, and I'd be surprised if you expected anything different), both of these statements are absolutely true.

When we look at how similar "churched" Christians are to the rest of culture - by and large, as materialistic and self-centered as the "unchurched" - we need to be looking in more detail at our practices and methodology. The fact that many of our practices have pagan roots SHOULD trouble us. There's a reason why every religion in the world relies on some form of clergy/priests presenting truth in a ritualistic, presentational format. It is a method of control. There is also a good reason why this methodology was absent from the New Testament church.

Sometimes God establishes things a particular way for a reason. If it's criticism to suggest that we should work back towards the way the church was established, then I'm certainly a critic.

The best point I've read on this topic for years is by Wolfgang Simson, in "Houses that Change the World," where he says this:

"If it was possible for the very essence of the gospel - salvation by faith, justification by grace - to be buried under the sand of history, what about the rest? If we can gravely err in the very key and core issues, could we also have erred in other, lesser issues? The fact that the Bible was again given into the hands of common people started what I call the history of rediscovery: it was the turning point where the church started to climb again out of darkness, escape its own structural prison and rediscover, step by step, long-forgotten truth and long-forgotten practices, including the house church as an organic form of church."

Lest you get the wrong idea, Simson is as much a critic as Viola. But this is one of the statements that convinced me that house church proponents had a huge point.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to this book (been on order for a few months now).

Sandy asked: "I was just curious about two things. One, what or how would you describe the churches of the NT (in your words)? Two, how are they similar/different from "our" churches?"

One of the awesome things about the Word of God being accessible to everyone, as opposed to the thousands of years when the Catholic church restricted it to clergy alone (by not allowing it to be translated into common languages), is that anyone can read what is described in the NT and compare it to the church as it stands in their time. This is what Luther and others did during the reformation, noticing a huge gap between the church's theology and what is described in the NT. This is what others are doing today, looking more at structure and practice (which was not significantly altered during the reformation!). I would encourage anyone to read specifically what the NT says about church meetings and practice and compare. Ask the question why we're not more like that. You'll find that few people want to engage in that discussion.

The biggest differences to me are that we have maintained a huge emphasis on clergy vs. laity, and we continue to restrict participation in church gatherings to the "professionals." Paul clearly describes a different approach, where the purpose of the church gathering is mutual edification, where believers are led by the Spirit to participate.

There's more to it than just that, of course, but I think that's one of the more visible differences, and probably one of the central issues. I've been writing a lot about this stuff, on my blog, that you can scrutinize. (And I actually encourage it - I could use the scrutiny!)

Bernard said: "If there's a problem, God is totally capable of reigning them in."

Like I said earlier, there's a difference between people criticizing churches because it differs from their experience (e.g "God hates rock music!") and comparing modern church to the scripture (e.g. by pointing out that the clergy/laity division undermines the priesthood of all believers). The former are just complaining. God corrected Israel through the prophets, who were rarely listened to. Today, we've banished prophets and apostles, by claiming they no longer exist (though there is no scriptural support for this).

I guess I'm saying that if God is going to reign the modern church in, He's going to do it through prophets and apostles, and you can be sure that they will not fit the mold of what the modern-day church expects them to look like. And you can be sure that most people will not be willing to listen.

Overall, I would agree, especially with this statement Tony just made:

"We have God's Word and the Holy Spirit to guide us."

But what does it mean when our churches look nothing like the churches described in the NT? What does it mean when we do not allow the Spirit to guide our gatherings?

It's one thing to say someone is wrong. It's another thing to point out that modern churches don't look like what is described in the NT.

Much anticipated? What are you, high? Fucking idiot.

"You see I prefer to put forth the image of being a serious journalist even if I am writing this in my pajamas."

If you were a serious journalist you'd probably have put a comma after the word "see", and probably after "journalist" as well. You write like this all the time and it drives me crazy. Is your comma key broken or something?

Spelling Todd,

Sorry for the misspelled word.  My German is a little rusty.  Thanks for staying on top of these punks.

--Derek

"If I could speak in any language in heaven or on earth but didn't love others, I would only be making meaningless noise like a loud gong or a clanging cymbal." (1 Cor 13:1)

That verse immediately sprang into my mind when reading this.

It's not about the greatest message, the greatest communicators, or the greatest venues.

It's not about communicating louder, or clearer, or more relevantly, or more intellectually, or with more pizazz.

People will only stop to listen to the message - and will only be able to truly understand the message - when they see it in the context of love. Our love for each other. And our willingness to love them.

I made it to the bottom of the post. It's great reading what it's like for someone new to conferences like this -- and how frustrating it is when hard-core techies head off into their own little jargon world.

Um, I'd love to see some kind of Bible reference that indicates that Christians are supposed to be "independent" and "feed themselves." Because I'm pretty sure there aren't any.

We're supposed to be interdependent. Jesus used phrases like "feed my sheep" and "love one another." The last shall be first. He taught them that service to each other was the most important thing. We're not talking about reaching the lost here, we're talking about within the community of believers.

Yes, that does mean that people need to step up and help out. But the biggest thing is that they need to participate in real relationships with each other, something more than just small groups or even a weekly house church meeting.

When we use words like "independent" we make it sound like we're on our own. We were never meant to grow spiritually while isolated from everyone else. We were meant to edify each other, confess our sins to each other, pray for each other, love each other, teach each other, and depend on each other. Perhaps the biggest reason I left the conventional church setting is because it's nearly impossible to accomplish those key elements of church in a non-participatory setting.

If we can get that figured out, whether in a conventional or house church setting, then "helping the church introduce more people to Christ" will happen as a result of the love they see in us.

I agree with Anne, that God will use a variety of formats, structures, and methods to bring people into the one saving truth of Christ.

However, the truth is, that all successful churches utilize the small group format to one degree or another, whether it is a conventional church with small groups, cell churches, or house churches. Conventional churches struggle with how to get people plugged into a small group program. Cell churches do a better job, but they will still have people who won't commit to the cell group. But in house church, the small group is the church, so it's not a struggle.

When I invite someone to my church, I am inviting people to a meeting that is designed, at it's core, to provide "relational connection" as "the key ingredient" (Tony's words), and not "just inviting people to show up for an event at the church" (again, Tony's words).

The issue of relational connection is one of the main issues that led us to join a house church rather than to seek out another conventional church. It is the exact issue I've been struggling with for years - how do we design a weekly meeting that has a relational element to it? The answer, for me, was to drop the presentational stuff (which was hard for me to do) and focus on relationships as a regular course of being the church. It is much easier to tack "events" on to a weekly relational meeting than it is to tack on "small groups" to a weekly event.

Finally, and this is important, there are a number of people I've come into contact with in the past six months who have had extremely bad experiences with churches in the past - experiences that border on cult issues - and therefore they have a hard time trusting ANY church at all. Yet these people feel very comfortable to the idea of a church that meets in someone's home, where one person is not in charge directing every aspect of the meeting. Perry, if your concern is that house churches can't reach everybody, you should understand that conventional churches can't, either, and there are definitely people in this world who would never find Christ in a large conventional church, but they will find it in the loving relationships in a house church.

"If Jesus would have wanted us to sit around and suck thumbs..."

Wow. If that's your mental model of a house church, then you need to meet some people who attend one.

Granted, some house churches are formed out of pure bitterness and isolation, and house churches are just as prone to sitting on their thumbs as any conventional church is.

But the reality is this - if Jesus had intended for us to launch groups of thousands, with a single "pastor" at the top - he would have started the first one himself.

Yes, he preached to thousands, on occasion, at least. Yet the gospels speak of how he would do his best to escape those crowds. How he chose twelve specific people to pour his heart into them, and then told them (via the great commission) to do the same.

If the very Son of God chose "quality" over "quantity," who am I to second guess him?

If Jesus had millions of dollars, he wouldn't be building church buildings (large or small). If Jesus had thousands of followers, he'd be picking twelve of them and concentrating on those. If Jesus had to choose how to spend his time, he'd be spending it with people instead of preparing all week long for a large weekly event. At least, that's what I'm finding in the Bible I've been reading.

I'm certainly not going to say that transformation can't happen in a conventional church, of any size. But when it comes to discipleship, you simply can't argue that larger is better. I'd argue that true discipleship doesn't even occur on a level of 12-20 (a typical small group or house church size) but more on a level of 2-3.